Megachurch's Anti-Vaccine Stance Results In God's Measles-y Wrath

from the or-maybe-it's-just-nature dept

Here's a fun question: what if there is a God and he/she/it has a sense of irony? I'm not sure whether that thought is comforting or terrifying. For instance, let's say you're a Christian down in Texas and you belong to a megachurch.You're a good Christian, part of a good Christian community, and you go to church every Sunday to celebrate your faith. All good, right? Now, let's say this megachurch then tells its parishoners that they shouldn't immunize their children against the measles because the pastor has been spending too much time listening to Jenny McCarthy and a horribly flawed/fraudelant study done by a quack doctor years ago. Pretty dumb, yeah? Again, what happens next if God, or even just the universe, has a sense of irony?

Well, I'd say that the result would be religion doing what religion does best: performing a resurrection. Only this time, the resurrected is an officially obliterated disease that hasn't been seen for years due to vaccinations. You know this disease better by the name measles.

The latest measles outbreak is in Texas, where the virus has sickened 25 people, most of whom are members or visitors of a church led by the daughter of televangelist Kenneth Copeland. Fifteen of the measles cases are centered around Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas, whose senior pastor, Terri Pearsons, has previously been critical of measles vaccinations.

Previously critical means that Copeland told her parishoners not to get the vaccines over concerns that they cause autism in children. Make no mistake, no matter what your views on her religion, this is easily the most falsifiable thing Copeland has ever said from the pulpit. I'd suggest that people in positions of authority and power, including religious leaders, have a responsibility to not advocate endangering children. Could this be a form of child abuse? I'm not sure, but it's a discussion worth having, because when someone uses their religious platform to advocate the kind of nonsense that can directly kill people, that's a problem.

Now, to her credit, Copeland has since done an about-face and urged her community to go get the vaccine.

"Our children and even adults of all ages need to be immunized now to stop the spread of measles and prevent those potential complications," Pearsons said. "The disease is only shut down when all are immunized."

It's nice to see such strong, difinitive statements from Copeland that are actually true. People, immunize your children. Doctors know more than quack researchers and plastic-boobed playmates.

This is why I don't respect any "religion" although I do believe in God or some form of it, still I have a hard time believing humans.

Here is the kicker though, I also believe that people should be free to try anything they like, dangerous or otherwise, if their pastor says God will protect them and they chose to believe in him that is their business, who knows he may be right once and save lifes or more likely he be wrong and many many people will suffer the consequences of blind obedience that exclude thinking or questioning.

But it is their choice, not others, and the responsibility for said choices lye square on the people making those.

What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

That's actually the most interesting factoid: that an "officially obliterated disease" would break out among followers of a preacher who warned against vaccinations! Had to be caused by either divine or human agency, and I'm betting on the latter. But Timmy whizzes right past without comment on what have to be staggering odds.

Timmy has an obvious anti-religious bias, while he blindly believes whatever the gov't tells him.

Now. Google just "vaccine death": About 57,500,000 results

At the very least, that one number shows are HUGE concerns in this area.

"Among 13,033,274 vaccinated people, 15,455 deaths occurred within 60 days following vaccination. The rates were highest in people of age 85 years and older, and increased over the period following vaccination. Eleven of the 15 leading causes of death in the VSD and NCHS overlap in both systems, and the top four causes of death were the same in both systems."

Is 15,455 deaths a LOT compared to normal? Oh, math is too difficult for Timmy! He can only rant in ignorance.

Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

The "Road To Damascus" is too long

I never stop being suprised by these "Road To Damascus" moments. Recall, recently, the former McCain-2008 aide who was then against Obamacare but now that he has cancer is 100% supportive?
When will these people quit confusing their "self interests" with their "best interests"?

The most salient point of Tim's post is

No disease is ever eradicated or obliterated. It continues to exist within the population ready to strike at any time.

Vaccinations need to be considered on a case by case. Some are useful, others are less so and can be more harmful to the population at large than not having the vaccination. By more harmful, I include getting mildly sick from them than not getting sick at all.

I have observed that when the annual influenza vaccinations are available here, we end up seeing many more people sick than we would otherwise. Funnily enough, it appears to spread to those who don't get vaccinated (it is supposed to be dead and not transmissible).

I recall a conversation with a former colleague from many years ago, where he said he meticulously got his flu shot each year and promptly got sick. He eventually discussed this with his doctor and came up with the protocol of having the shot over three sessions, each a week apart. He didn't get sick after implementing this protocol.

Me personally, I don't bother. if I get sick I get sick, if I don't then I don't.

Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is

The problem with the flu vaccine is that they give you a vaccine for the top 3 strains that they predict, but that weakens your immune system fighting those, which makes you more susceptible to other strains that were not part of the vaccine.

The 2 worst flus I have ever had were the 2 times I got the vaccine.

So,

1. if you are going to get the vaccine, get it now in hot weather/late summer when you aren't likely to catch anything else.
2. don't get a flu vaccine. Just keep yourself warm and rested and fed and avoid touching other people's mouse/keyboard and wash your hands after your restroom breaks.

the anti-vacccination cult

I know people who have this anti-vaccination belief. It's not based on anything scientific - it seems to be based on Facebook rumors. Increasingly, I meet people whose whole life is based on Facebook. They'll believe anything if it's written on Facebook.

As for vaccines, the only real risk for most people is an allergic reaction. It's rare, but it happens. It's for this reason that hospital and clinic staff always tell you to stick around for 15 minutes after being vaccinated. Allergic reactions show up quickly, so if you keel over, they can give you a shot of epinephrine which will almost certainly halt the attack. Unfortunately, most people ignore the warning and leave the clinic immediately after being vaccinated. I admit, I'm guilty of that too, but I've never had a reaction to a vaccine, and I've been vaccinated against just about everything.

Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

Oops... I can only blame "out of the blue induced brain failure" on this one... but the stats nerd in me will not let this error stand.

Clearly my frame of reference needed adjusted because if all it took was getting a vaccine every 60 days to make Nana live longer they'd be flying off the shelves and we could just count on the anti-vaccine idiots dying off faster than they could troll techdirt.

The 0.7995% ANNUAL death rate needs to be adjusted to 60 days... so 0.7995*60/365 = 0.1314% so you're "only" 10% MORE likely to die if you DIDN'T get vaccinated w/in the last 60 days.

Never understood all the panic over a few cases of measles causes these days. I am 60 and when I was a kid it was just expected that sometime before your teens everyone would get measles, mumps and chicken pox. Except for the very young and elderly this was no more than an inconvenience in otherwise healthy kids. I have heard that vaccines can weaken in effectiveness over years but those that had these diseases when they were young will never get them again.

Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is

"No disease is ever eradicated or obliterated. It continues to exist within the population ready to strike at any time"

Which is exactly why vaccinations are necessary. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone my age suffering from polio or TB, but I do recall all of my peers at school having vaccinations against those diseases. Having said that, some disease do indeed get eradicated with effective vaccination (smallpox).

"I have observed that when the annual influenza vaccinations are available here, we end up seeing many more people sick than we would otherwise. Funnily enough, it appears to spread to those who don't get vaccinated (it is supposed to be dead and not transmissible)."

You're confused in at least 2 different ways about the reasons for and effect of flu vaccinations. You also need to read up on the concept of herd immunity and other reasons for vaccinations working (hint: what happens to you as an individual isn't the be all and end all).

Really?

I'm sorry to say it, but this really is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on Techdirt, and no, I'm not a Christian.

So they got measles, so what? Are they now dead? Seriously injured? No. They got sick and then they got better. When I was a kid everyone got measles and it wasn't an issue. Then again I guess the medical-industrial complex can't bring themselves to say no to a few extra billion dollars.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, please...Only in the fervid imaginations of Big Pharma ad copywriters has any disease ever been "eradicated by vaccine". Of course, some diseases can be said to have been "officially eradicated", but that only means that some "official" at CDC has declared such nonsense.

The author has let his anti-religious bias led him into reiterating some mainstream media account of "official" anti-vaccine cocktail heresy being punished by an outbreak of an "officially eradicated" disease.

This is actually a totally unconvincing "news story". Was it lifted verbatim from a mainstream source?

Re: Re: Really?

Like I said in my earlier comment only certain risk groups have any problem with measles. Vaccinate them but don't worry about healthy kids that get it. Like me when I got measles when I was about 10 all it meant was a week off school and a lot of Calamine lotion.

Re:

Explain how smallpox has disappeared if not by using a vaccine.

Seriously, I know that some people are religious in their anti-vaccine stance, but would it kill you to actually provide a counter argument rather than 3 paragraphs of opinionated bullshit that we're meant to believe just because you say so? Paranoid bullshit is just that unless you actually provide a reason not the believe the evidence that supports the argument you're attempting to fight.

Some diseases have effectively been eradicated since the advent of vaccines (e.g. smallpox). Others have been drastically reduced (e.g. TB, polio). What's your explanation for this that doesn't link to vaccination programs? Cite your sources.

Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

The idiots that claim that vaccinations cause autism are using really flawed reasoning. They point to rising cases of autism but the reason for that is in the past many cases went unrecognized or were thought to be ADD or ADHD. Now I think it has swung the other way and Autism is over-diagnosed.

Re:

Okay, guys, kill the anti-religion nonsense. I didn't attack this woman's religion in any way, I attacked the danger of her using her religious pulpit to spout anti-vaccine bullshit.

And, yeah, I give religion a hard time, just like I give a hard time to about everything else I write here. It would be biased if I DIDN'T go in on religion the same way as everything else. So cool your jets. Whichever God you believe in is doing just fine without me...

Careful, your intolerance is showing

It amazes me how tolerance is preached from the far corners of the earth these days and yet we live in a very intolerant society. The irony is that the people who preach tolerance are usually the least tolerant.

But then again, why should anyone be tolerant? After all, we are just one big happy accident coming from the primordial ooze right? If so, then anything goes. They can preach whatever they want, you can be as intolerant as you want and may the strongest survive.

Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

I will be intolerant toward those that use their power to harm others.
This preacher used her standing in her community to spread a lie. If she is ignorant she should have no power, and if she is not ignorant then she is evil and should have no power. This is not about survival of the fittest (which by the way is not the same a might makes right), this is about a wilfully ignorant person endangering others.

Re:

That's just because many of these folks get off on making fun of God/religion.

Vaccinations are extremely dangerous. One can easily research this subject. Who knows what crap they're injecting into people? They've been known to put stuff like mercury and aluminum in their vaccinations. Just as with other industries, their primary motive is profit, but potentially something more sinister. A eugenics program promoted as something for your health, similar to how they lie about the "health benefits" of sodium flouride which they put in the water supply.

I wouldn't even put it past them to have intentionally infected those parishioners with the measels. Remember the Tuskegee Experiment, where they intentionally infected about 400 black men with syphilis?

Video description:
For fourty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for bad blood,1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. "As I see it," one of the doctors involved explained, "we have no further interest in these patients until they die."

Also, there was the St. Louis Experiment, where from 1953 to 1963 our military secrectly sprayed a fine powder made of zinc cadmium sulfide from planes and rooftops around poor neighborhoods.

Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Re: Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is

Technically, I suppose that should be "eradicated in the general population," since samples of the smallpox virus have been saved for research (hopefully peaceful) in labs. I seem to recall hearing that the last recorded case was in fact accidental lab exposure.

Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

Here's some crude number crunching, of the population of your survey 0.1186% of people died, going by the percentage of deaths per person on earth given here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate the amount of people who die as a percentage of earth's population in 2 months is 0.1395% meaning that the survival rate for the study could be considered to show that vaccines increase the likelihood of living, though this is with the confidence interval. Perhaps you should consider your own math.

Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Is there?

I would not know. All I know is that it works. Vaccinated children do not get sick, and non vaccinated children get it. In Canada, the only outbreaks happen in those communities that refuse vaccination.

When they can prove that vaccinations do more harm than good, I suggest we find a better way. Until then, ignorant people screaming about conspiracies are not a reliable source of information either way.

The only way to solve this is to do the study. If we just stop all the vaccinations what we will have is an increase in disease and child mortality, which were the things that universal vaccinations were intended to change.

Being pro-vaccine won't protect you from actual effects.

"You won't hear anything about it from the mainstream media, but the federal government's kangaroo "vaccine court" has once again conceded, albeit quietly, that the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does, indeed, cause autism."

Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

I will be intolerant toward those that use their power to harm others.

My statement was not about whether they are right or wrong about vaccinations (though I believe the pastor is wrong in this case). My statement was about the not so subtle undertones of intolerance toward Christians. Calling someone out for putting someone in jeopardy is fine, calling them out on their Christianity is just plain bigotry.

Re: Being pro-vaccine won't protect you from actual effects.

Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

It's good to be sceptical. However, what we DO know is that vaccines work. As shown here - people avoiding vaccines have contracted measles while those who were vaccinated did not.

As ever, don't whine that people are being intolerant of your ignorance or unfounded assertions. Prove that the danger related to the ingredients in vaccines outweigh the danger of not taking vaccines.

No bare assertions and paranoid ramblings - facts. Anti-vaxxers do tend to be high on rhetoric and bare assertions but light on verifiable facts in the fact of unquestionable evidence (unvaccinated people get those diseases while the vaccinated do not; measles kills and causes blindness in some of the infected, etc., etc.)

There's a legitimate reason not to trust authority blindly. There's also a legitimate reason not to trust people who make bare assertions about unquantified supposed dangers without any evidence.

Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

I don't see any intolerance toward Christians. I may agree with you that this article is intolerant toward this pastor,and she happens to say she is Christian. This does not lead to bigotry. This is still intolerance toward stupid people, and you being sensitive to something that does not exist.

Look up SV40. It's a monkey cancer vaccine that was put in polio vaccines for years and has caused much human cancer. Trouble with vaccines is they are very powerful and you are at the whim of the makers who still BTW put cheap mercury in them. I have seen excellent proof people have been damaged by vaccines.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Let's put this another way. Suppose the idea wasn't to "make everybody sick" but rather only a small fraction. Since only the latter got a negative reaction after the fact, they could make the case that their vaccination was/is a success, after having achieved their ulterior goal. And you'd never even know.

Can anyone prove without a shadow of a doubt A) what's actually being put these vaccinations, B) that it can successfully combat/prevent something, C) that these people aren't complicit in helping to spread more illness around so as to bolster their profits?

Paranoid rambling? No, more like cautious outlook. It would be foolish to put trust in anyone who's primary goal is to profit off your deteriorating health (or the fear of such). If everyone were healthy, they'd be put out of business.

Re: Re: Re:

Exactly. You can believe whatever you want as far as I'm concerned if you keep it to yourself. But if you try to force that on to other people either directly (legislating your beliefs) or indirectly (withholding vaccines thus weakening herd immunity), you have to justify your beliefs.

That's where a lot of people fail, in my experience. Conspiracy theorists will parrot a lot of rhetoric but often fail when asked to prove specifics. Religious people will justify a lot of their beliefs with "because Jesus" or "because the bible says" but fail to come up with anything to prove those sources correct or justify to those who don't believe in the sources like they do.

The problem with some of those people is they're so used to being mocked that they consider any criticism as mockery no matter how valid. Or, they're so used to everybody in their cult blindly agreeing with them that they feel that merely daring to question their beliefs is a form of persecution.

Re: Re: Re: Really?

So, you're unaware of the risk increasing with age, the fact that vaccinations are not 100% effective and thus the need for herd immunity and numerous other factors? Let alone the fact that there are different strains of disease and you may only have been infected with the weaker strain.

The plural of anecdote is not data, and public health should not be determined by random anecdote.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're simply wrong on your facts. You're correct, it's easy to research this stuff -- and a LOT of research has been done over a long period of time. It's interesting that you don't actually present any (yes the source is actually important unless it actually presents solid scientific evidence, which none of yours do).

All the research shows very clearly that vaccines are hugely beneficial and have saved literally millions of lives. Even research that is critical of vaccinations acknowledge this point.

Is there a risk with vaccines? Of course (although the actual risks are rarely what the anti-vaccine people claim). However, the risks are absolutely miniscule when you look at the horrors that vaccinations have eliminated.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

"Paranoid rambling?"

Yes. You didn't provide any actual reason to believe that the ingredients in the measles vaccine was questionable, nor that the danger of those ingredients outweighed the dangers of measles itself. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs saying "yeah but what it if IS true?".

Do you have any facts on your side, or just some conspiracy bullshit that's 2 steps away from truther/birther crap?

"It would be foolish to put trust in anyone who's primary goal is to profit off your deteriorating health (or the fear of such)."

What about the people whose primary goal is to profit from uncertainty and fear about vaccines (certain religious groups, "alternative" health providers, etc.) and spend their time spreading such things? Do they get the same sceptical treatment from you? All things being equal, who do you trust more and why?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Are you equally scared about what is in your other medications, your food, your water, your clothing, etc? If not, why not? You don't really know what's in any of that stuff, either, and you're exposed to a great deal more of that stuff than vaccines.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

You must have some kind of persecution complex coupled with an inability to understand the English language. What that sentence says is "throw whatever you think about her religion to the side, it doesn't matter, because this horribly false thing is the most false thing she's ever said from the pulpit."

Not everyone is out to get you, my sweet Christian friend. Take a breath and relax....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

More like the polar opposite. Funny how every new law coming out of the woordwork, (always) draped in the guise of "equality," seeks to compromise the rights of others by imposing intrusive regulatory powers by the state.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Any research done within the close-knit medical community is going to pat itself on the back, so it's really a moot point. They have their interests at stake and will work to cover themselves at all costs. This is comparable to film studios and music labels putting out reports with "facts" about the state of their industry, in an effort to manipulate and shape public opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

"Yes. You didn't provide any actual reason to believe that the ingredients in the measles vaccine was questionable, nor that the danger of those ingredients outweighed the dangers of measles itself. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs saying 'yeah but what it if IS true?'"

"What about the people whose primary goal is to profit from uncertainty and fear about vaccines (certain religious groups, 'alternative' health providers, etc.) and spend their time spreading such things? Do they get the same sceptical treatment from you? All things being equal, who do you trust more and why?"

I have yet to hear a sermon at my local parish exploring the dangers of vaccines, so this little game of 'us vs them' your waging is derailing from the hard subject matter. I can think for myself and I don't think that putting that crap listed in the human system is going to result in anything positive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Well actually, GMO food is somewhat questionable, although I'm not sure that it's something to be concerned about. Then again, I concede my ignorance on this subject because I really don't know much about it.

Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

Not necessarily. Sure, there are people who don't agree with or even hate Christianity but it's not fair to lump them all into one group and brandish the bigot card, which funny enough is what various groups seem to get off on doing to us simply for adhering to our beliefs. Don't play their game.

Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?

Yes, I know when you get older these formerly very common childhood diseases can be more serious. I am 60 years old and I am glad that I had the measles, mumps and chicken pox when I was a kid instead of hoping some vaccination worked back then. I am not knocking vaccinations. I am fortunate to be in the first generation to get the Salk vaccination. Before that thousands of people died or were crippled by polio every year. It seems to be major news any more when a couple dozen kids get measles somewhere. Usually just not that big of a deal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?

Don't forget there are those who are unable to get vaccinations due to age and those who have compromised immune systems. First dose for MMR is at 12 months.
Hate to say it, but this is a case where "think of the children!" is actually appropriate. And "think of the chemo patients!" and "think of the already sick with xxx patients! (where xxx means another disease, not explicit entertainment).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, since we're still waiting from your last bigoted rant, explain: how is ensuring that homosexual partners have the same rights as heterosexual ones compromising your rights? You do remember that nobody's suggesting taking away your rights, only that homosexuals are treated the same as you are, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

"Sounds like they're just disposing of all this crap by using people like living trash disposals."

Sounds like someone's been swallowing the worst propaganda whole without considering context or actual facts.

Do you have citations for your scare stories? I hear a lot of bad things about dihydrogen monoxide too, maybe you should avoid it.

"I have yet to hear a sermon at my local parish exploring the dangers of vaccines, so this little game of 'us vs them' your waging is derailing from the hard subject matter."

Awww, is our poor little bigot feeling prosecuted? You might have noticed that I said "certain religious groups", so if your homophobic parish doesn't participate in anti-vaccine propaganda then that's not what I was talking about. Try addressing my actual words.

Do you have any opinions that aren't reactionary crap wrapped in religious persecution complexes, or can I just reject your warbling out of hand?

"I can think for myself"

So does the guy I've seen screaming at the maggots under his skin, and I'm not about to take his advice on public policy either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Any research done within the close-knit medical community is going to pat itself on the back

So... anyone with the knowledge and education that qualifies them to research these questions cannot be trusted? And, as such, we should trust people with no knowledge or education?

Hmm, this looks interesting.

No, it looks like a book full of nonsense from the publishers who brought us a book described as "a remarkable analysis linking the assassination of JFK and 9/11," a street-conning guide called Scam School, a compendium of paranormal crime stories entited Ghouls, Ghosts, and Ninja Rats, and the Jesse Ventura American Conspiracy Card Set.

I'd give a lot more credence to these insane theories if they didn't always all come from the same place at once. Funny how you never meet anyone who believes in Bigfoot but NOT alien abductions, isn't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And I have yet to see any research to validate the health benefits to shoving aluminum, mercury and other toxins into the human system.

Neither of those things are "toxins". Well, I guess they are if you are using it in the completely meaningless way that trendy health-nuts use it to try to sound cool -- but since you're here claiming to have serious insight into a complicated medical subject, you should probably pick up a dictionary.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're just being silly here. The amounts of these things that you get from vaccines are incredibly tiny. Much less than you get from simply being exposed to the environment.

If you're really concerned about these toxins, you're attacking the wrong thing. Why not go after the much more significant sources first? Are you even more passionate about eliminating the pollution from cars, manufacturing plants, and natural processes?

If you aren't then your fury is impotent. If you get vaccines at all, it would make very nearly no difference in the total toxin load in your body.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps not, but it's an 'insult' in the same way as calling someone brown haired, male/female, or pointing out that they are a difference ethnicity, which is to say not insulting at all, while at the same time revealing a stunning lack of maturity in the one who thinks it's an insult.

Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

Not just flawed reasoning

but also cooked data (a.k.a. "bad science" and "fraudulent science").

The fact that the "research" was mainly the work of one man with an agenda and a willingness to doctor the data to fit his pet theory, is well known ,now (though some people for various reasons prefer to deny the plain, documented facts).

When all is said and done, there never was any actual evidence that vaccination promotes autism.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Never understood all the panic over a few cases of measles causes these days.

If you read farther in your comment you may find a reason.

Except for the very young and elderly...

Add those with weakened immune systems for other reasons, too.

"In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles... Death occurs, in developed countries, in about 1 in 1,000 cases (.1%)."

Plenty reason to want to get rid of the disease.

"In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare, mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%. Increased immunization has led to a 78% drop in measles deaths which made up 25% of the decline in mortality in children under five."

That last part is striking to me. 25% of the decline in children under 5 dying is accounted for by the measles vaccine.

"Mercury is a highly toxic element that is found both naturally and as an introduced contaminant in the environment. Although its potential for toxicity in highly contaminated areas such as Minamata Bay, Japan, in the 1950's and 1960's, is well documented, research has shown that mercury can be a threat to the health of people and wildlife in many environments that are not obviously polluted."

There you go, it is *highly toxic* and causes environmental damage, including polluting wildlife, especially fish which people eat.

And that's not even getting into the other stuff put in vaccines. Perhaps you should learn something before spewing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As with all groups, their interests precede all others. Don't want to offend the status quo and be denied lucrative funding...

I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense. If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?

For the record, I don't buy into either bigfoot nor alien abduction. I believe that the technology for so-called UFOs is government. I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Whatever. I've provided so much evidence proving that at every turn the homosexual movement infringes upon others' rights while you just sat there stone-walling me with your absurd appeals to emotion, so there's no sense in wasting my time arguing with you.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Exactly. You can believe whatever you want as far as I'm concerned if you keep it to yourself. But if you try to force that on to other people either directly (legislating your beliefs) or indirectly (withholding vaccines thus weakening herd immunity), you have to justify your beliefs."

If anything it's people like you who force your beliefs on others. Who the hell are you to tell anyone that they HAVE TO accept a vaccine, and then if they don't then they're *indirectly forcing their beliefs on others*? Screw that. You're nobody's boss.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing

"Sounds like someone's been swallowing the worst propaganda whole without considering context or actual facts.

Do you have citations for your scare stories? I hear a lot of bad things about dihydrogen monoxide too, maybe you should avoid it."

Nope. I refuse to play caretaker and pacify you just because you refuse to raise a finger to research anything yourself.

"Awww, is our poor little bigot feeling prosecuted? You might have noticed that I said 'certain religious groups,' so if your homophobic parish doesn't participate in anti-vaccine propaganda then that's not what I was talking about. Try addressing my actual words."

That's the sum total of your argument: throwing around empty labels and ridicule. It's all you've got.

"Do you have any opinions that aren't reactionary crap wrapped in religious persecution complexes, or can I just reject your warbling out of hand?"

You like to talk smack about religion, yet fail to see that you yourself subscribe to whatever happens to be PC at the moment. *Baaah!* One would think that 'political correctness' is little more than a semantic substitution for 'moral relativism.' It does seem rather strange to me how defensive you are about homosexual activity, how paranoid you are that someone might (gasp!) offend them by not giving affirmation and catering to their emotions.

Vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. If you are one of the unlucky ones with an adverse reaction then that's just tough luck right? A statistical anomaly. The human race will survive.

Most people are fine drinking sugar free drinks with Aspartame. For me they can cause severe migraines. The doctors couldn't tell me squat. Do enough research and you'll find the studies with increased complaints of headaches. I didn't go on a crusade against Aspartame, but ever since I am more likely to entertain the few outspoken "crackpots".

Like any science, vaccines do need some work particularly in the frequency of injections. I think far too many are given to kids in too short a time span. The number of vaccinations has more than doubled since I was a kid.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As with all groups, their interests precede all others. Don't want to offend the status quo and be denied lucrative funding...

You clearly have never met a real scientist in your life. The single greatest thing a research scientist could do for their career is disprove a commonly held theory or craft a novel one that surpasses it.

I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense.

I think the fact that all publications with a strong track record of publishing high-quality scientific literature -- most of which are independently funded and do not rely on money from the medical community you fear so much -- will not touch anti-vaxx material is very telling. I find the fact that the ONLY publishers that will touch it are those that specialize in conspiracy theories, ghosts and new-age topics even more telling.

The fact that you don't is just further proof that you don't have a scientific bone in your body.

If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?

Because only people like you would read it, or even give it a second thought.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, I looked at your facts. But it's not possible to engage in a discussion of scientific facts with someone who can't even be bothered to learn the basic vocabulary, so I'm not going to try to explain to you why you are drawing false conclusions. Based on your three links, though, I can suggest a new source of research for you: Sesame Street has these great segments called "one of these things is not like the others". Check it out.

For those knocking on the flu vaccine, its painfully obvious you have forgotten high school biology (or perhaps your biology class was simply not up to muster).

The human immune response to a pathogen is to produce the symptoms of the sickness. In other words, when you have a fever, that is not the bacteria or virus doing it to you - its your immune system responding to those pathogens which is giving you the fever. The same is true for all the other symptoms - congestion, cough, etc.

The flu vaccine is a *dead* vaccine. You CANNOT be "sick" from it. Though far more complicated in its science, think of the vaccine as a bunch of chopped up fragments of the virus. When injected into your system, the immune system responds as if it was a real virus. Therefore, it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, to have some of the symptoms of the flu as a reaction to the virus because the immune system is responding to the vaccine.

Most patients experience no adverse reaction to the vaccine other than minor injection-site reaction (soreness, red patch, etc). Some have more full blown symptoms. But because the vaccine is a dead virus, you cannot transmit it to others. You are not contagious. All you need is some acetaminophen (tylenol) and some fluids. No need to panic, no need to avoid others, no need to wear a mask, no need to worry - you are NOT sick; you are just responding to the vaccine.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The government isn't really spying on us, are they? The NSA isn't really monitoring us, are they? Nobody's listening in on our phone calls, are they? Nah, that's just some conspiracy theory bullcrap being spouted by paranoid nutcases...right?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense"

It's a reasonable metric. You're claiming the book is "interesting", but give no other reason to consider it to be factual. Leigh considered the source and found it lacking. Have you read the book? If so, why is Leigh wrong to consider that a book coming from a peddler of ridiculous conspiracy theories is different from the rest of their output? You're the one making the positive claim, why don't you do the work and validate your own assertion?

"If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?"

Self-selecting audience bias. Few people will read such blatant crap without an interest in the subject to begin with, and most people paying for the books will probably err on the side of believing such things as most people won't pay good money for they believe is blatant crap. Twilight gets good reviews too, that doesn't mean it's quality literature.

Put it another way: Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard gets generally good reviews on Amazon. That doesn't mean the content is true, it just means a lot of the people buying it are Scientologists.

"Nope. I refuse to play caretaker and pacify you just because you refuse to raise a finger to research anything yourself."

Except all the facts about vaccines that I have researched. You're the one making bare assertions but refuse to back them up. Stop being a lazy git and provide your own citations - I'm not here to research your lies.

"That's the sum total of your argument: throwing around empty labels and ridicule. It's all you've got."

So, you don't want to address what I'm saying. Got it.

"You like to talk smack about religion, yet fail to see that you yourself subscribe to whatever happens to be PC at the moment."

What is it about "PC" that offend religious bigots? Are you finally coming to realise that your ignorance and myths are no longer accepted blindly by intelligent folks and you now have to justify your hatred of others with something other than "that books says I should"?

"It does seem rather strange to me how defensive you are about homosexual activity"

I don't like ignorant bigots. I'm sorry that this means that I don't particularly care for you, but the label fits. Sorry, your belief in stone age fiction does not mean that you get tho strip rights from others willy nilly, and yes I do defend those who are persecuted in this way.

Accept that, justify your prejudice or GTFO. While you're unable to do any of these things, your homophobia and your ignorance about the way vaccinations work put into question every opinion you state here. Cite your sources or accept that I will disagree - and I have facts on my side that don't consist of myth and lies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He's no longer able to openly hate, attack and persecute people due to their sexual orientation, just as he's no longer able to attack people based on the colour of their skin. He only cares about his right to do this, not the right of others not to be attack and persecuted, so he considers it an infringement.

Re:

Few people will argue that vaccines aren't 100% without their problems and few will argue against people having exemptions from the vaccines over real medical concerns or other genuine reasons.

It's the conspiracy nutballs who aren't taken seriously. "I can't have the vaccine because I'm allergic to X" is a valid excuse (and a reason why herd immunity is such an important factor - you're still protected to some degree even if you can't have the vaccine). "I can't have a vaccine because the government is out to get me and therefore Jesus" is not a valid reason.

"The number of vaccinations has more than doubled since I was a kid."

...and this is a problem, why? Why has this increase taken place - is it due to that making vaccines more effective, that kids are being immunised against increased or what? Does the risk posed by the vaccines outweigh those of the diseases being vaccinated against?

Answer these questions and there can be an honest debate. Claiming there's danger and/or conspiracy just because of the number of injections won't get you that debate unless you provide evidence that support that claim.

You're admitting that 'political correctness' is nothing more than socialists attempting to force their moral relativism upon society, to influence what people say or think, much like Newspeak in Orwell's 1984. Too bad that us religious people will never compromise our beliefs to cater to sexual deviants' emotions.

I've already provided more than enough evidence about what's included in vaccines. Ignore it all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"There is no legitimate argument that two guys or girls getting it on is natural, normal."

Exactly, other than the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, in mammals, human and otherwise. Other than the fact that its natural and a certain percentage of a population having it is normal, it's neither natural or normal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for exposing your true colors. In fact the sole purpose of putting this article about vaccines, of all things, on Techdirt was because it gave you a convenient excuse to ridicule Christianity.

The overwhelming majority of people DO NOT BELIEVE that homosexuality is normal. There's a valid reason why every empire which embraced it fell in short order. There's nothing "progressive" about it, es NO benefit to humanity. You agree with it simply because it's a means of further demoralizing Americans and attacking religion.

Re: Re:

So, you are NOT sick, it's just that your body is responding to something foreign that has invaded it...yeah...wait, what?

If "sick" means "infected with a pathogen" then no, you're not sick. I would say it means that, at least in this context. After all, sneezing is "your body responding to something foreign that has invaded it".

This is not God's sense of irony...

it's the inevitable result of parents refusing vaccinations of their children, thus proving that fear of Autism causes more death and disease than Autism itself does.
BTW, do you think the same thing is said about OOTB as is said about vaccinations; "It's only a little prick"?

"I've already provided more than enough evidence about what's included in vaccines. "

No, you haven't. You've provided a couple of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and a few links that bear no greater truth than the anti-dihydrogen monoxide link I suggested (water, in case you're too stupid to understand)

"socialists"

I guessed you were one of those right wing Americans too stupid to undertan politican spectrums I'm just disappointed to be proven correct

"Too bad that us religious people will never compromise our beliefs to cater to sexual deviants' emotions."

Oh dear, I just had to address this one too....

You're not interested in attacking "sexual deviants", even if your particular cult thinks that's what you're attacking. You're just a moronic bigot. Why?

Well, you claim to be opposed to anal and oral sexual intercourse, but I don't see you trying to remove rights from heterosexual couples who do such things. I don't see you stripping freedom from people who take part in orgies, wife swapping or swinging. I don't see you attacking scat, furry or watersports enthusiasts, and I don't see you protesting S&M fans.

Nope, everything's fine for you unless the participants have the "wrong" kind of genitals. Not only are you stupid enough to thing that sexual intercourse is the most defining thing about homosexuals - meaning that you're protecting the rights of the local heterosexual slut over and above the rights of a homosexual couple who have been in a monogamous relationship for 40 years - but you're not even consistent in your claimed reason for opposition.

First, get your prejudice sorted out, then we can talk about a reason I should accept it that doesn't depend on believing your book of fiction. Citing that as a source is as poor as the anti-vaccine ignorance you've been pushing.

Again, attacking my iPhone's autocorrect does not undermine my actual, clear intention. What more needs to be said - you obviously agree with my points else you'd address them instead of playing grammar Nazi.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You'd have thought that someone who likes to play grammar Nazi would know what words mean. Strange, considering you're failing that using them.

Bigoted? How? It's true that I don't like bigots like Michael up there, and will say as such. Are you really saying that I'm a bigot because I don't tolerate bigots? Are you that stupid?

Anti? Anti what? I'll admit that I'm anti-homophobe, anti-bigot and anti-ignorance but I don't see the problem with any of those things. Perhaps you'd like to explain why I should tolerate rights being stripped from people because someone else doesn't like them.

Abuse? What else would you call child rape and molestation? Certainly nothing comparable to consensual actions between two loving adults.

Do you want to explain any of these are are you just a conspiracy-minded bigot who doesn't like the fact that a free society allows me to call you out as such? Stop being an idiot - if you want a meaningful conversation, why don't you attempt to start one?

Re:

I assume this is directed at me, even though you've failed to use the reply button.

Yes, these things happen in nature, but that's irrelevant. I'll assume this is meant to be a spin on my reply to Michael but you'll see I was referring to his claim that homosexual actions are "unnatural", something quickly disproven by the fact that it does happen in nature. So, the same argument doesn't apply.

However, of course, not everything "natural" is good. Cannibalism and rape also happen in nature but there's some very good reasons why these are unacceptable in a civilised society. Paedophilic actions are illegal for the same reasons as bestiality is illegal - both have at least one non-consenting party by definition. Not something that applies to consensual homosexual relationships, so your red herring is a stupid as it is irrelevant.

What's lacking here is a reason that homosexual human beings should be shunned and have less rights than others. Why don't you provide some reason if you're so afraid of gay people? If you can do so without referring to irrational fear or a book of fiction, that's a good start for a conversation - why don't you supply such a reason? Simply justify your own bigotry and maybe we can discuss it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

See, this is what I mean. You've been so brainwashed to think a certain way that you can't see any other way to think. As long as you are, and as long as you let emotion get in the way, there cna be no meaningful conversation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?

Maybe insightful, but wrong. You need to divide by 6, since the CDC stats are for the full year. So the death rate among the general population over 60 days is 0.7995%/365*60= 0.131%. Which is pretty damn close to the 0.1186%. Demonstrating pretty clearly that there is no obvious correlation between vaccination and near term mortality.

I reckon the difference could be chalked up to many people near death would not be vaccinated when otherwise they would be. Of course, there are many other convoluting factors-- the elderly are more likely to get the flu vaccine and have higher mortality. Ditto very young children. The least likely to be vaccinated are healthy folks in 20s, 30s, 40s. Who also have among the lowest mortality rates.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Emotion has nothing to do with it - I'm dealing with cold logic. Why should I not be anti-bigotry and anti-ignorance? Why should I treat people as a second class just because others don't like it? What reason is there to deprive them of rights? I don't care whether the person in question is black, atheist, gay or has 3 arms, they're entitled to the same rights as you until you can give a logical argument otherwise.

You don't provide any such reasons - and then you call names and make accusations. You're the reason why you're not having a meaningful conversations. As I've said, bring any conversation you wish - but you have to be armed with facts and debatable ideas. Don't whine to me just because you've arrived unarmed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm not saying you shouldn't be anti-bigotry or anti-ignorance. But you, oh so tolerant one, are a hypocrite. You are bigoted against pedosexuals. When you get rid of ALL your bigotry and prejudice, then your stance may have a ring of truth to it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, and I should mention that even your "hilarious" attempt at false equivalency is itself a lie.

I support exactly the same rights for paedophiles to do whatever they want with other consenting adults as any other human being, gay or straight. None of their rights should be restricted or removed for anything they do with a consenting human of majority age. I wish everybody to be treated exactly the same - the exact opposite of bigotry. That has nothing to do with the other things you're suggesting, but you know that.

I can certainly quantify and justify why I'm opposed to paedophiles doing what they want with children but happy for gay people to do what they wish with consenting adults, and I can back those up with logic arguments and facts. Can you suppoort your own hatred and bigotry in such a way?

Using emotionally-charged words and parroting the government line shows just how brainwashed you are. You know nothing of the people for whom you show such hatred. You obviously believe that merely BEING a pedosexual equates to child rape. In your eyes someone who identifies as pedosexual yet has never sexually touched or harmed someone who is under the government-approved AOC is a rapist. I would ask you how so, but all I would get is more of your blind illogical hatred that fails to answer the question. This is why there can be no dialogue with someone such as yourself.

Which government? I hope you're not stupid enough to assume I'm American and not to have clicked on my profile where my nationality and location are clearly stated. Assumptions from your own ass are not things honest people use as a basis for their arguments.

But then, you don't seem to be an honest person since you can't answer simple questions, only attack strawmen versions of the people you're addressing.

"blind illogical hatred"

Again, I ask, what is your basis for this claim. I'm merely asking for consenting adults to be treated equally regardless of race, creed or gender. This is "hatred" to you?

I support rights except in cases where the effect of having those rights upheld disproportionately affects or undermines the rights of others (e.g. you have the right to have sex with whomever you want unless that person does not or cannot consent to it). So, the right of a gay man to have sex with a consenting gay man (or marry him and have a completely sex-free lifestyle as some gay couple do ) is OK but sex with a child is not OK as the child cannot legally consent.

Only a moron or a bigot can fail to understand this simple point.

"It's a good thing you're not an anarchist 'cause you'd make a pee-poor one."

I'm also not a Hindu or a centurion in the Roman Empire. Nor have I claimed to be. So what?